Seeking Alpha

LookingConfident's  Instablog

Send Message
Longstanding investor in Looksmart (and a 70 yr old ex-tradesman), who has a passionate interest in the problems of newspapers along with their success in all their monetisation attempts made, on the web. For the "times are indeed, a changin", I feel. [17th of Aug, 2011 - Print media... More
View LookingConfident's Instablogs on:
  • Twitter - @SenBrandis @YvetteDAth @SteveAustinABC

    (click to enlarge)

    Wednesday morning

    Dear Honourable Attorney Generals,

    Please take notice of all this - if not for our children and our grand-children.

    Peter Cosgrove - Governor-General [A living man.]

    [Official] General the Honourable Sir Peter Cosgrove AK MC (Retd)

    Its important to learn that a "papal nuncio", officially known as an Apostolic Nuncio [or, the Pope Francis representative in a country], is a permanent diplomatic representative of the Holy See to a state. [Meaning, a U.N. corporate state.]

    Pope Francis' appointed Apostolic Nuncio to Australia, is His Excellency Most Rev Adolfo Tito Yllana (who is a doctorate in civil and canon law, and completed post-graduate studies in international diplomacy at the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy in Rome.)


    On Wednesday 24 June 2015, at Government House, Canberra, the Governor-General received from His Excellency Archbishop The Most Reverend Adolfo Tito Yllana [the "papal nuncio"], Letters of Credence accrediting him as the Ambassador of The Holy See.

    The permanent diplomatic representative of the Holy See to a state [the "papal nuncio"] was accompanied by Monsignor John John Kallarackal (Counsellor).


    Ross Bradley

    • Ross Bradley .
      The denial, ongoing secrecy or, that its even "illicit" to mention, accept or, generally recognise the Pope's "law" and his sovereign role (as the crown) here in Australia, is so obvious.

      In view of Australia's Governor General's now becoming an [the] official Ambassador to the Holy See.. and the "symbolic" status only, of 'the Queen', the Governor General's role of importance (and in regards to the Law), must now, surely be considered as being significant.

      Page 390 of this book (in looking at FIVE CASE STUDIES OF EUROPEAN MICRO STATES), may point us to that, as being so.

      (Click on, to read.)

      Ross Bradley

    • Ross Bradley .
      The double mandate [are].. "worldly and ecclesiastical tasks".

      The corporate Queensland government can call on (and use) the Papal "law" (The Doctrine of Discovery) in it's own "defense"- yet will deny it when we (as living men/women) choose to call on it ("Motu Propio"), ourselves?

      That sounds fair.

      Fact is, that in 1985 the corporate Queensland Government had used that very same "Doctrine of Discovery" themselves... in "Mabo v. Queensland"

      Then "corporatised" the Queensland Supreme court, the Justices, the Governor of Queensland in 1999 and then the Queensland constitution, in 2001.

      The Supreme court? One of plenary jurisdiction?

      < "The Doctrine of Terra Nullius became a morphed and more extreme version of the Doctrine of Discovery and was not overruled until the 1992 case of Mabo v State of Queensland.

      However, the legacy of Terra Nullius remains with the Crown retaining the underlying sovereignty of all land in Australia.

      The Papal Bulls that sanctioned the invasion and exploitation of Indigenous peoples lands all around the world are still valid.

      The US decision of Johnson v McIntosh has not been overruled. Johnson v McIntosh continues to be relied on around the world including in Australian post Mabo decisions." >

      Is there still any doubt as to who the "crown" is?

      "The Doctrine of Discovery" -


    Ross Bradley.

    Never a dull moment.


    Sep 08 9:45 PM | Link | 2 Comments
  • GOLD - "If The Corporation Sole Had Never Trespassed Beyond....."

    From Facebook ... (Just saying...)

    [At Law]

    The current Premier of the corporate government of Queensland (being, Annastacia Palaszczuk) is not the Queen of Queensland. Nor, was the previous Premier, Campbell Newman, ever the King of Queensland.

    It's simple. If living men and women choose to be citizens of the corporate state of Queensland (we do have freedom of choice), then we are subject to the "rule" of, the corporation. If we don't...

    Ross Bradley

    Ross BradleyHow to get out of paying fines, rego, fees and tolls

    The screen-shot above, says it all.

    (From "The Crown as Corporation", by Frederic Maitland..1901. Frederic William Maitland FBA [28 May 1850 - 19 December 1906] was an English historian and lawyer. He is generally regarded as the modern father of English legal history.)

    Other snippets read so far, include:

    < The greatest of artificial persons, politically speaking, is the State.

    But it depends on the legal institutions and forms of every commonwealth whether and how far the State or its titular head is officially treated as an artificial person. In England we now say that the Crown is a corporation: >

    < [And] If the corporation sole had never trespassed beyond the ecclesiastical province in which it was native, it would nowadays be very unimportant. Clearly it would have no future before it, and the honour of writing its epitaph would hardly be worth the trouble. >

    The "King" became the head of a corporation aggregate. And as such, was answering to who, at law?

    < Whether the State should be personified, or whether the State, being really and naturally a person, can be personified, these may be very interesting questions. >

    He (Frederic William Maitland FBA) was referring to THE KING as being UNDER, the Pope. As head of a corporation aggregate. Full stop.

    Always, only an opinion.


    Sep 04 6:53 PM | Link | 2 Comments
  • Supreme Court Of Appeal - Queensland ("Not Only Must Justice Be Done"?)

    The Justices of the "Supreme Court of Appeal" here in beautiful Queensland may need to do a little 'weeding of their own garden', and in the interest of restoring "Justice" here, in the Sunshine state?

    (click to enlarge)
    The Chief Justice "race", here in sunny Queensland.

    An appeal application to the Supreme Court of Appeal will now likely be lodged on Monday 31st of August with the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Queensland. (Similar to below.)

    "Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done."

    Reason for the application

    *That the "evidence" will show (and as will be presented) that the decision handed down on 28th of August by the Honourable Justice Jackson (to dismiss the matter entirely - and to award costs to the defendant, in the initial matter before the court) was unsafe in that a fair hearing (at law), was not afforded to me, as the Plaintiff.

    *That both rostered Justices for the matter before the court on the 28th of August, 2015 (The Honourable Justices Applegarth and Jackson), were in (what appeared to me to be, an almost Judas-like) denial of the law at a highest of levels, and for whatever their reason or, reasons.

    Grounds for this application: Briefly

    On Friday 21st of August I filed a Document with the Supreme Court Registrar to ask the court for a ruling on two concerns I had with the (a Judicial Review) matter, before the court.

    A date was chosen for these two queries to be heard. (Friday, 28th of August, 2015.)

    On the Monday 24th of August,2015 I then served Crown law (who had initially nominated themselves, for the defendant in the matter), with an advice to attend on Friday, 28th of August, 2015.

    Crown Law then filed a Document on 25th of August, to have the matter dismissed, on - and for it to also be heard on Friday, 28th of August.

    In a hearing, Crown Law gave the Justice (Justice Jackson) a list signed and handed to the court by a Mr Gerard Sammon - Barrister at Law) containing listed statements, to support their own dismissal document - lodged on the 25th of August, 2015), in court today.

    Crown Laws' (pictured above) Mr Gerard Sammon's dismissal application itself (filed on the 25th and 4 days AFTER my own document, being my own application - with it being that, had originated the 28th of August hearing date), was heard before the court.

    My own document (filed on 21st), is not listed as can be seen, so it was not heard on the day. Why so?

    I initiated the hearing, yet I was not heard?

    Where is (or, what happened to) MY document to have initiated the hearing with, as was Filed on 21st of August?

    Ross Bradley

    (click to enlarge)

    Yes. Never a dull moment in the "life of" LC, that I can assure all.


    ps; From Facebook...

    (click to enlarge)

    Aug 28 9:42 PM | Link | 2 Comments
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers


More »
Posts by Themes
Instablogs are Seeking Alpha's free blogging platform customized for finance, with instant set up and exposure to millions of readers interested in the financial markets. Publish your own instablog in minutes.